Evaluating the Effects of a Peer Training System on the

Portland State University Portland State University

PDXScholar PDXScholar

Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses

5-31-1996

Evaluating the Effects of a Peer Training System on Evaluating the Effects of a Peer Training System on

the Subsequent Performance of New Employees the Subsequent Performance of New Employees

Dariush Khaleghi Portland State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds

Part of the Psychology Commons

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Khaleghi, Dariush, "Evaluating the Effects of a Peer Training System on the Subsequent Performance of New Employees" (1996). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 5325. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.7198

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected].

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/etds

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds?utm_source=pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu%2Fopen_access_etds%2F5325&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/404?utm_source=pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu%2Fopen_access_etds%2F5325&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://library.pdx.edu/services/pdxscholar-services/pdxscholar-feedback/

https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.7198

mailto:[email protected]

THESIS APPROVAL

The abstract and thesis of Dariush Khaleghi for the Master of Science in

Psychology presented May 31, 1996, and accepted by the thesis committee

and the department.

COMMITTEE APPROVALS:

DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:

Leslie Hammer, Co-Chair

Ellen Skinner

Talya Bau~r Representative of the Office of Graduate Studies

********************************************

ACCEPTED FOR PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY BY THE LIBRARY

by on.$ 6,Lp44-?{y= /997

ABSTRACT

An abstract of the thesis of Dariush Khaleghi for the Master of Science in Psychology

presented May 31, 1996.

Title: Evaluating the Effects of a Peer Training System on the Subsequent

Performance of New Employees.

Peer training is one of the most recent training methods identified. Some

anecdotal studies claim that peer training is successful, however, there is no empirical

data to support such claims.

The purpose of this study was to conduct an empirical evaluation of a Peer

Training System (PTS) in a manufacturing environment. Effects of the PTS on

reaction, behavior, and results criteria described by Kirpatrick (1959) were explored.

The PTS group was compared to a control group that did not receive any systematic

training. It was hypothesized that the PTS trainees would obtain higher ratings on four

dimensions of performance (operation, technical, training, and teamwork) than the

control group, based on ratings from their supervisors, peers, and themselves. This

study also sought to explore the trainee reactions to the type of training they received,

and attempted to explore whether receiving the PTS accelerated the trainees' job status

from temporary or contractor status to regular status.

2

Forty employees working for a manufacturer of personal computers

participated in the study (20 in each, the control and the PTS groups). Participants

were selected on the basis of their hire date and matched based on their technical

experience, technical or college education, and initial interview results at the time of

hire.

The data were analyzed using separate multivariate analysis of variance and

analysis of variance. Results did not indicate any significant differences on any of the

four dimensions of performance or overall performance between the control and the

PTS groups. Focus groups revealed that the PTS group was more satisfied with their

training program as compared to the control group. The employment status of the two

groups was not able to be compared. Overall, the results did not support previous

anecdotal work claiming that peer training is more effective than classical on-the-job

training.

Conclusions were drawn that peer training was not effective in improving

employee on-the-job performance compared with non-PTS training. The reaction of

the new employees to the PTS, however, was positive. In addition, Peer training can

be used as a low-cost, just-in-time, and flexible technique to meet the demands of the

competitive world markets.

EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF A PEER TRAINING

SYSTEM ON THE SUBSEQUENT PERFORMANCE OF

NEW EMPLOYEES

by

DARIUSH KHALEGHI

A thesis submitted in partial fuJfilJment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE in

PSYCHOLOGY

Portland State University 1997

Peer Training System 2

Evaluating the Effects of a Peer Training

System on the Subsequent Performance of New Employees

Many of today's jobs require basic reading comprehension, math,

and science, particularly in the high-tech industries where working with

manuals (e.g., operation and safety specifications) and documents (e.g.,

quality indicators and charts) is a part of most jobs. With advances in

technologies and rapid obsolescence of existing skills there is a marked

technical skill and knowledge deficiency among employees in many

industries. Such, general skill and knowledge deficiencies will lead to

higher cost for the individual employee, the company, and the economy by

lowering the competitive power of the industries in the world markets.

To tackle the problems of unskilled labor and to maximize

individual worker potential, specifically, in high-tech industries, many

instructional methods and training techniques are being used by

companies. On-the-job training, lecture method, programmed instruction

(i.e., self-instructional materials and automated teaching machines),

computer-assisted instruction (i.e., tutorial programs), audiovisual

techniques, machine simulation, and team training are some common

training practices (Goldstein, 1993). Historically, on-the-job training has

been the primary method used to create and sustain a skilled technical


work force (Spencer, 1983). As the degree of sophistication and complexity

of production systems, especially in technical and manufacturing

industries increases rapidly, there is more focus on customized training

strategies that incorporate more structured on-the-job industry-specific

content to the training (Duvall, 1983; Rumberger, 1981). Peer training,

which is a more recent form ofOJT, is the focus of this study.

Training as summarized by Goldstein (1993) is, "the systematic

acquisition of skills, rules, concepts, or attitudes that result in improved

performance in another environment" (p. 3). Latham (1988) states that

the ultimate objective of any training system is to enhance and change the

attitudes, knowledge, and skills of trainees, resulting in more adequate

performance of a task or a job. To enhance the skills and competency

levels of employees, emphasis must be applied to either on-the-job training

methods, off-site instructional methods, or a combination of both. In cases

where training is delivered on-the-job, the learning environment is closely

associated with the actual job situation. In classroom settings, however,

training is delivered far from the working environment (Goldstein, 1993).

In either case, the purpose of any training system is a systematic transfer

of the desired skills and behaviors from the learning environment to the

actual job setting.


Training either in a classroom or on the job is expensive and time

consuming. Many companies hire outside consultants to design and

deliver training for their organizations. The recent increase in the number

of external training companies shows that training is evolving into a large

and profitable industry (Gordon, 1988). Recent studies demonstrate that

among the Fortune 500 companies, 91 percent of the companies were

delivering training to middle managers, 75 percent to sales associates, 56

percent to secretarial and administrative staff, 51 percent to executives

and top managers, and 44 percent to technical operators (Ralphs &

Stephen, 1986). Other research on training has found that most

companies that have more than 1,000 employees offer at least some type of

management training program (Saari, Johnson, McLaughlin, & Zimmerle,

1988.) In the coming decade, therefore, it is expected that employee

training and development will continue to become a top priority for many

companies (Goldstein, 1991; Milkovich & Boudreau, 1991). Furthermore,

our work environments are changing so rapidly that employees have to

constantly either retrain themselves or be retrained by companies to keep

their current employment or to advance to new jobs (Hodson, Hooks, &

Riehle, 1992).


On-the-Job Training

Goldstein (1993) states that nearly all trainees experience some

type of on-the-job training (OJT). He reports that in most companies the

standard or classical on-the-job training is used. In classical or standard

OJT, trainees work in the real job environment where they observe and

learn from an experienced worker. Standard OJT has always been critical

in creating and sustaining a skilled work force (Spencer, 1983). Denison

(1984) reports that standard OJT has been responsible for 55% of the

improvements in labor productivity compared to 26% for re-employment

schooling between 1929 and 1982.

According to Filipczak (1993), in standard OJT a new trainee would

be assigned to a task under the supervision of a senior operator of that

task. The new trainee has to observe and follow the instructions of the

senior operator and learn through trial and error. The advantages of

standard OJT are that the transfer setting is the training setting and the

trainee can practice the exact required tasks (Goldstein, 1993). However,

Filipczak indicates that there are some key disadvantages that are

involved in the process of standard OJT. First, it is expected that the

trainee must learn by mere observation, verbal feedback, and guess work.

Second, it is expected that a skilled worker is a skilled trainer, which may


not be true. Third, it is expected that a trainer must produce and train

simultaneously. This can lessen the effectiveness of a peer as a trainer

due to the lack of time and focus. This condition can hurt both the

production and the training and may create an environment not conducive

either to training or learning. Fourth, it is expected that training will be

successful; when the training is not successful, the trainee is to blame.

Fifth, in the case where a company is growing rapidly, standard OJT

cannot respond to the rapid expansion, because the company's demand for

both training and output will increase for the trainer. The final and

greatest disadvantage of classical OJT is the possibility that a trainee can

learn unfavorable behaviors from the trainer due to the lack of a

standardized training system. A trainer, on the other hand, may feel that

the entire training process has been imposed on him or her

(Filipczak, 1993).

Goldstein (1993) also asserts that although standard OJT is one of

the most widely used training methods and although OJT appears to work,

it is usually unsuccessful when it is not clearly defined to serve specific

training objectives. The demand for objective skills training, as a result,

increases when new technologies and methods of manufacturing develop

rapidly (Chamot & Baggett, 1979). According to Kelley (1989), "the


capacity to exploit a new technology depends in reality on the

technological know-how and versatility of the workers who are expected to

use that equipment" (p. 303). As technologies advance rapidly and

industries become more sophisticated and skill intensive, organizations

that use OJT more systematically (Harper, 1987) can increase their ability

to compete in the world markets substantially (Kusterer, 1987).

Peer training is an emerging systematic approach to OJT. The

objective of this training method is to utilize expert peers as trainers

where their primary function is to train. Contrary to the classical OJT,

peer trainers usually do not produce while they are training. Therefore,

training takes priority over production (Filipczak, 1993). In contrast,

Goldstein (1993) states that most OJT programs are not planned and peers

are utilized as trainers because it is cheap and easy to implement, lacking

an instructional foundation. As a result, OJT training programs (e.g., peer

training) must consider the effectiveness of these training methods to

ensure transfer of expected skills and behaviors to the real job

environment (Duvall, 1983; Rumberger, 1981).

Fredericksen, Meyers, and Riley (1986) asserted that structured

OJT methods such as peer training should involve training and learning

processes with set objectives and specific planning. Filipczak (1993) stated


that, for instance, the peers involved in peer training should be selected

based on certain skill and competency criteria, on previous successful

performance, and on their supervisors' recommendation. After the

selection process, there should be curriculum courses that the peer

trainers must accomplish before they are certified to train. He adds that

some of these courses should focus on adult learning behaviors, effective

listening, effective communication, and facilitation skills. Peer trainers

should also attend training courses that focus on training skills and

behavioral role modeling aspects of training (Filipczak, 1993).

This vastly increasing demand for competent and skilled workers

has forced companies to try new methods of training. Peer training is one

of the latest of these attempts. Although there are some anecdotal reviews

reporting success of this new method, there has been no systematic

empirical research conducted to evaluate such claims. Therefore, the

purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a peer training

system (PTS) as a training method in a high-tech manufacturing

environment.

Training Evaluation

Despite the tremendous amount of advancement in the development

of training methods by most companies, evaluations of training program


effectiveness have been rare (Goldstein, 1991). Developments and

progress in training programs and methods do not guarantee any real

change in the skill level, knowledge, and abilities of the trainee if the

program lacks a thorough evaluation process. Latham (1988) asserts that

in order to insure that the training objectives of a training program have

been achieved, the training program must consider the evaluation of the

effectiveness of that program. He adds that the evaluation must focus on

measuring changes in the observable performance of the trainees once the

training has taken place. By measuring changes in performance, the

organization can verify that the training has been successful in achieving

the training objectives.

Goldstein (1993), however, reports that most research studies in

training evaluation have focused on trainee reaction to the training rather

than on evaluating subsequent behavior and performance of the trainee in

the real job environment. He alleges that over 90% of evaluations

performed in organizations focus only on trainee reaction to the training

programs rather than on evaluating whether the transfer of skills has

taken place and whether on-the-job performance of the individual trainee

has been enhanced. Lack of management emphasis on training, lack of

proper skill to conduct evaluation, confusion of training personnel about


the purpose and procedure of a training evaluation, and fears of failure of

a training program by training staff have constituted the obstacles to

training evaluations (Goldstein, 1993).

To measure the effectiveness of a training program, Goldstein

(1993) suggests that a set of learning objectives, based on the needs

assessment, must be determined to achieve the desired training goals.

This set of learning objectives has to meet certain levels of training criteria

to be effective (Goldstein, 1993). These levels of training criteria have

been delineated by Kirkpatrick (1959):

Kirkpatrick (1959) categorizes the four levels of training criteria

(reaction, learning, behavior, and results) that a training evaluation must

consider to meet the organizational learning objectives. According to

Kirkpatrick (1959), employee reaction can be determined by evaluating

what employees think of a specific training program. Learning, the second

level of criteria, is the goal and objective of any training program and must

be measured by a quantifiable method. At the third level, behavior,

Kirkpatrick suggests that an evaluation of the trainee's on-the-job

behavior must take place to assess whether the transfer of skills and

learning from the training environment to the actual job setting has

occurred. In the end, he concludes that training programs should assess


the impact of training on the overall organizational objectives (results), the

fourth level of training criteria. This level emphasizes that training

results must consider the effects of training on organizational goals such

as reducing costs, enhancing quality, increasing productivity, lowering

turnover, increasing job satisfaction, and enhancing the overall well being

of the organization (Kirkpatrick, 1959). A systematic evaluation of a

training method based on these levels of training criteria, therefore, allows

for better decisions in planning, selection, and implementation. This

systematic approach also helps training organizations to modify their

training programs just in time, increasing the impact of training on the

overall organizational objectives and output through adequate training

(Tannenbaum & Yuki, 1993).

The present study will explore the effectiveness of a Peer Training

System (PTS) which is a form of on-the-job peer training, using reaction,

behavior, and results criteria. A PTS has been implemented in a

manufacturing environment to enhance the trainee reaction, trainee on

the-job performance, and organizational outcomes.

Published literature on peer training presumes positive outcomes

and benefits of this method of training by presenting mostly anecdotal

evidence of its effectiveness. For example, Fredericksen et al. (1986)


claimed that peer training has been a very successful method for some

insurance companies in transforming a traditional paper-processing

assembly into an efficient, effective, and integrated unit. One insurance

company used peer training by creating 6-person work groups who

learned to do all the jobs for which the team was responsible. The

employees then went back and trained other peers. The authors claim

that the objectives of peer training of achieving 100% performance level,

motivating peers to cross-train, developing "How-to-train" courses, and

relying on actual skills practice were successfully met. These authors also

believed that transforming a traditional training program into a peer

training program helps in developing an efficient and integrated unit,

simplifies introduction of new products, and offers employees a more

rewarding and satisfying job experience (Fredericksen et al., 1986).

Heise (1990) also claims that decentralizing the information system

and encouraging peer training in a worldwide manufacturer of electronic

components resulted in savings of about $3 million the same year and a

projection of a doubling in savings for the year after. He reported that the

company obtained an IS (information systems) needs assessment for each

business unit. Project plans were designed for each plant. Project teams

including IS employees and computer users were created and were


provided with 2-weeks of training by contracted trainers. Encouraging

project teams to train peers after the training period was completed

enabled the company to decrease costs and increase savings.

Obenshain (1992) reports that 1,500 members of a company's sales

force were able to use peer training and learn how to use new laptop

computers in just five weeks, leading to a 25% increase in sales in that

year. She noted that the company developed a 21-member task force,

consisting of MIS (Management of Information Systems) and marketing

professionals that spent six months researching and selecting a specific

brand of laptop computer. The team then developed a customized software

to accompany the hardware. Afterwards, the team used laptop computers

to train their co-workers in the use of the new technology 0.aptop and

software) when making sales calls. Obenshain claims that the high

training capability of peer training, in training the new technology to the

sales force, resulted in continuous increases of sales. In the end,

Obenshain (1992) concludes that the key underlying success of the peer

training is that, working together, peers can achieve reasonable goals in

just about any time.

To summarize, Adkins (1994) reports that some of the advantages of

peer training include: 1) creating a just-in-time training system, 2)


reducing training and development time, 3) offering the employees the

opportunity to learn and to gain experience, and 4) capitalizing on the

technical and skills of the employees of the organization. Rickett (1993)

adds that, "The genius of peer training as an instructional method is that

it mirrors the way people actually learn in the workplace" (p. 72). He

reports that when in need of training, people in reality are apprehensive

about using manuals and self-instructional books; they prefer to use their

fellow peers as a source of learning. Peers usually present a non

threatening source of information as opposed to managers and supervisors

or even instructors and formal trainers. "Peer training is not a superficial

teaching method: people learn what they need when they need it. Peer

training provides timely help to learners in the workplace because it

matches the flow of work requirements" (Rickett, 1993, p. 72). Rickett

concludes that the market's constant change, the high rate of turnover, the

influx of new hires, the constant upgrade of software and hardware, and

the demand for continuous improvement in a high tech environment

makes peer training the most appealing choice.

Peer Training System in the Present Study

In the present study, the effectiveness of a peer training program,

referred to as Peer Training System (PTS), will be evaluated in a high-tech


company. PTS is a specialized and improved version of peer training. PTS

has been developed and implemented by this company to take advantage

of expert and dedicated peers (peers whose primary function is to train) in

the training of new employees. PTS integrates a simulation environment

and the training process to reinforce the instructional basis that is lacking

in other OJT techniques. The training usually takes place in a training

environment with similar characteristics to the real work setting. For

instance, if there are eight assembly lines in a factory floor, two of them

may constitute the training lines. In training lines the same activities

such as assembling, testing, and quality inspection take place but there is

no production. In this study, PTS focuses on achieving skills and

behaviors tailored to the needs of the organization in the short run. It also

emphasizes the development of the peer trainers' skills and competencies

in the long run. In this study, PTS is thought to be effective because it

utilizes existing high-performing peers to do the training, retraining, and

cross training in a setting that stimulates the real job environment free of

pressure of production. PTS uses extensive resources and requires

considerable planning. It has been designed to possess a strong

instructional foundation completely conducive to both training and

learning.


Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992) have developed guidelines for an

effective training program with an emphasis on the training environment.

The PTS explored in this study is presumed to meet these guidelines.

These guidelines are as follows:

1. The training method should be congruent with cognitive,

physical, or psychomotor processes that guide the trainee to the most

effective retention of information in the memory, that is to achieve

mastery of that task (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). In this study, PTS

provides such an environment with simulation assembly lines (lines that

emulate the real assembly lines closely) for practice and mastery and

dedicated peer trainers who are expert in the field and in training skills.

2. The learner should practice, recall, and apply the task frequently

for retention and transfer purposes (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). In this

study, PTS provides simulation assembly lines that offer all the necessary

opportunities for the trainees to practice sufficiently, utilizing job-specific

information to learn and retain.

3. The trainee must be given constructive, relevant, precise, and

immediate feedback (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). In this study, PTS

creates the ideal environment for feedback since highly skilled peers are


present at all times to deliver constructive, relevant, precise, and

immediate feedback.

4. The training method must increase the self-efficacy of the

trainees (trainee's perception of what they can do with the skills they

learn) and increase their expectations of positive outcomes (Tannenbaum

& Yukl, 1992). In this study, training is initiated with small and simple

steps that lead to more complex and sophisticated processes in PTS,

insuring the enhancement of trainee's self-efficacy and his or her positive

outcome expectancy.·

5. An effective training method has to take into consideration the

different knowledge, job skills, capacity, potential and aptitude levels of

trainees (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). In PTS, peer trainers attend

courses to learn about individual differences in learning styles and are

taught to take them into account when training.

In addition to the guidelines mentioned above, Berets and

Thompsett (1992) have emphasized that environmental conditions can

enhance learning and retention or adversely affect it by hampering this

process. They have identified punishment, fear of failure, boredom, and

anxiety as obstacles to learning and retention. They claim that most

educational institutions and organizations have created environments that


promote barriers to learning. In this study, PTS eliminates many

obstacles to learning. Barriers such as punishment, fear of failure, and

anxiety will be minimal when the learning occurs in a simulated work

setting that encourages the trainees to practice without worrying about

failure or punishment. The non-threatening work environment that is

taught by peers, instead of mangers or instructors, can also lower the fear

and anxiety levels. Trainees are free to ask questions whenever necessary

and interact with one another without fear of being judged as incompetent

by their peers whose job is to train.

Filipczak (1993), Fredericksen et al. (1986), Heise (1990), and

Obenshain (1992), in their anecdotal reviews, reported that peer training

has been a very successful training technique. Virtually no systematic

empirical study, however, has examined the effectiveness of peer training.

The Present Study

The goal of this research was to conduct an empirical evaluation of a

PTS in a high-tech manufacturing environment. The objective of this

training program was to train and certify peer trainers and utilize them in

three levels of training. At the first level, expert peers were certified to

operate and to teach all operations in manufacturing. In addition, they

attended courses to learn how to use effective communication, problem


solving, and conflict resolution skills to appropriately develop newly-hired

trainees' skills and knowledge and to successfully certify the trainees at

the end of the new-hire training period. The main function of peer

trainers at this level was to train and certify new hires.

At the second level, peer trainers were certified to perform and

teach the factory processes and procedures, to troubleshoot the equipment,

to teach factory courses (e.g., safety, quality, and testing PC software), to

tailor and adjust the training for different learning styles, and to develop

training packages (e.g., one-on-one and small group training lessons).

This level usually takes an average of one to two years to accomplish

because it requires a great deal of training and development.

After finishing the second level, peer trainers are certified to go to

the manufacturing lines and retrain and cross train senior operators. At

the third level, expert peers are certified to teach at all stations in the

factory, identify multi-functional problems and assume responsibility for

the resolution, and organize PTS while facilitating the team development

towards long-range organizational objectives. At this level, peer trainers

are considered training specialists and, in addition to the level 1 and 2

duties, can identify and train new peer trainers. In this study, PTS was

newly implemented and peer trainers had begun their new roles as peer


trainers recently. However, peer trainers were currently certified to train

only new hires, thus, only level 1 of PTS was evaluated.

In the present study, subjects were assigned to either a control

(classical OJT) or an experimental (PTS) group and their performance was

rated by three different sources (supervisor, peers, and participants

themselves). The analyses compared posttest mean rating scores by the

employee's peers, supervisor, and employees themselves on ratings of four

dimensions of performance (operations, technical, training, and teamwork)

to determine whether any significant difference existed between the PTS

and the control groups.

The control group included employees who had been hired and

received standard OJT six months prior to the implementation of PTS.

The experimental group was the first group of employees in the company

who received PTS. Thus, this study constituted a quasi-experiment in

which subjects could not be randomly assigned to conditions. However,

both groups had been hired based on the same criteria: job experience (no

technical experience), education (no technical education or degree higher

than high school diploma), and results from initial interviews. Thus, both

groups had been matched to some degree, making the results interpretable

and causal inferences possible to some extent despite the lack of pretest


scores (Cook & Campbell, 1976). The disadvantage of this design was the

absence of pretest scores.

Research Questions

Filipczak (1993), Fredericksen et al. (1986), Heise (1990), and

Obenshain (1992), in their anecdotal reviews, present some of the

advantages of peer training over other OJT methods. They claim that peer

training has achieved successful results for the companies that

implemented this method:

Accordingly, the present study examined the PTS in terms of its

effects on training outcomes. In particular, effects on reaction, behavior,

and results criteria described by Kirkpatrick (1959) were explored. At the

behavior level, it was hypothesized that employees who had received PTS

would obtain higher ratings than the control group on four dimensions of

performance (operations, technical, training, and teamwork).

In addition, to measure reaction criteria, informal focus groups of

five employees for both PTS and control groups were formed. Group

discussions on the levels of employee satisfaction with the type of training

received, levels of perceived learning, on-the job behavior change, and the

levels of skills transferred, were conducted. This study attempted to

explore the advantages and disadvantages of both training methods, as


well as whether the PTS group had a more favorable reaction to the

training as compared to the control group.

To measure results criteria, PTS and the control group were

compared in terms of their current job status (temporary, contractor, or

regular employee). All employees were hired through a temporary agency;

therefore, their status was temporary, and they were not considered direct

employees of the company. This temporary assignment would have

changed to a contractor employee status within six months, normally, if

the employee met the performance requirements of the company. Then,

the contractor employees would have stayed contractors for an additional

six months before their status changed to a regular company employee

upon meeting the performance expectations of the organization. Even

though the normal period for evaluation and change of status to a regular

employee was a minimum of six months, a high-performing employee may

have received offers of contract or full-time employee status at a much

faster rate. Employment data for the PTS and the control groups were

compared to explore whether they had been promoted to a contractor or

regular employee status within the first six months of their employment.

It was hypothesized that the PTS group would receive offers of contract or

regular employee status faster than the control group.


This study explored the effectiveness of PTS: (1) by comparing the

experimental and control groups on the four dimensions of performance

(technical, operations, training, and teamwork) measured by the

company's performance appraisal system; (2) by comparing qualitative

data from the informal focus groups to explore the employee reactions to

the training process; and (3) by comparing the participants' employment

status to determine the impact of the training method on the organization.

This study constituted the foundation for future empirical studies on this

topic. ·

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 40 current employees working for a computer

systems production division of a high technology corporation. Participants

were selected on the basis of the date that they started their current

position in the company (i.e., their hire date). The 40 participants were

the only employees who were hired for the months selected for the study;

six months before and six months after the implementation of PTS. The

participants, therefore, were not randomly selected (their selection was

based on the available number of new hires for this study's time line.) The

control group was composed of 20 employees whose hire date was October,


1994. The control group was assigned to the assembly lines at the time of

hire and received standard OJT from a senior employee and no additional

training. Six months after hire, the control group was rated by peers,

supervisors, and themselves on the company's performance appraisal

system, using the organization's standard Skills Evaluation Form (SEF).

The experimental group consisted of 20 employees whose date of hire was

April, 1995. Training of the experimental group took place on designated

training lines for the duration of two weeks by peer trainers before they

were released to the assembly lines. They received training on how to read

safety, quality, and assembly documents and practiced hands-on assembly

of the same products that would be built on the real assembly lines.

Hiring criteria such as job experience (no technical experience), education

(no technical education or degree higher than high school diploma), and

results of the initial interviews at the time of hire were the same for both

the control and the PTS groups.

To evaluate the reaction criteria, focus groups were conducted at the

same time for both groups which occured eight months after the PTS group

was hired. Focus groups for the control and the PTS groups, therefore,

were conducted at 14 months and 8 months, respectively, after their hire

date due to the fact that there was a six month time lag between


evaluation of the control group and the PTS group. The evaluation at the

behavioral criteria level of the PTS and the control group took place six

months after they were hired (see Figure 1). To evaluate the results

criteria, the current job status (temporary, contractor, or regular) of both

the PTS and the control group were compared six months after they were

hired by the company, using employees' personnel files.

Measures

A standard organizational performance evaluation form, "Skills

Evaluation Form" (SEF), was used to measure the performance of the

participants on four different dimensions: operation, technical, teamwork,

and training. SEFs were developed using a company-wide manufacturing

job analysis as well as manufacturing technician competency matrix

commonly used for annual performance appraisals by management. There

were a number of competencies within each performance dimension.

Furthermore, SEFs included specific criteria that defined each competency

to provide a more objective measure of the competencies (see Appendix A).

The technical and operations dimensions included seven competencies, the

training dimension included ten competencies, and teamwork dimension

included eleven competencies. Raters responded on a 3-point-scale: 1=

"does not demonstrate the skill," to 3= "consistently and reliably


demonstrates the skill" for each competency within each performance

dimension. The SEFs were rated by five peers, a supervisor, and the

employees themselves. For the five peer ratings, the average of the five

was calculated.

The reliability coefficient g, of the SEFs on the four performance

dimensions for supervisors were calculated as g, (operation)= .85,

g, (technical) = .83, a. (training) = .88, and a. (teamwork) = .92; for peers

were calculated as g, (operation) = .65, g, (technical)=. 71, g, (training)=

.61, and g, (teamwork)= .63; and for the participants themselves were

calculated as g, (operation) = .58, g, (technical) = .62, g, (training) = . 75, and

g, (teamwork) = .80, showing adequate reliability of measurement only for

supervisory rating with all alphs greater than . 70. The reliability

coefficient on the overall performance (four dimensions of performance

were collapsed into one dimension) for supervisors was calculated as

a. = .94. Due to the low reliability coefficients (g,s) for peer and self ratings,

these ratings were eliminated from the analyses. Efforts to raise the

reliability coefficients for peer and self ratings were unsuccessful. As a

result, only supervisory ratings on the four dimensions of performance and

the overall performance for the control and the experimental groups were

compared in this study.


To evaluate and explore reaction criteria, informal focus groups of

five employees each from both the PTS and the control groups were held.

To conduct more structured discussions and receive more objective

qualitative data, a set of pre-written questions was presented to the

groups (see Appendix B). Due to strict organizational policies, the use of a

tape recorder was prohibited in recording the actual discussions in the

focus groups. Notes from the discussions in the focus groups were

recorded.

Results

Analyses

To answer the research question regarding the effects of PTS on the

subsequent performance of new employees, a correlation matrix of the four

dimensions of performance for the supervisory ratings was calculated.

This correlation matrix measured the intercorrelation among the four

dimensions of performance (technical, operations, training, and teamwork)

for supervisors. The correlation matrix indicated that the four dimensions

of performance were highly intercorrelated (see Table 1). One-way

multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), therefore, was conducted.

These analyses tested the difference between PTS and control groups on

the four different dimensions of performance (operation, technical,


training, and teamwork) for supervisors. Using MANOVA, it could be

determined whether any of the dimensions of performance would

differentiate the PTS and the control group more than others. In these

analyses, the independent variable was the training groups (control and

PTS). The four dependent variables were the four dimensions of

performance (operations, technical, training, and teamwork). The use of

four different dimensions of performance measures was to test whether the

dimensions of performance were relatively independent measures of

performance.

The high intercorrelation of the four dimensions of performance for

the supervisory ratings suggested that the four dimensions of performance

were measuring the same variable. As a result, the four dimensions of

performance were collapsed into one variable, overall performance. A one

way analysis of variance (ANOVA), therefore, was conducted to further

test the difference between PTS and control groups on their overall

performance. In this analysis, the independent variable was the training

groups (control and PTS). The overall performance constituted the

dependent variable.

To evaluate employee reactions to the training process, focus groups

of five employees from both the experimental and the control groups were


conducted. Overall focus groups explored the advantages and the

disadvantages of both the PTS and the OJT training methods. In addition,

possible training alternatives were discussed. To assess the impact of PTS

at the organizational results level, the employment status of employees

(temporary, contractor, or regular company employment) in both groups

was compared, using a x2 statistic.

Behavior Criteria

Means and standard deviations of supervisory ratings for each

training condition and performance dimension are summarized in Table 2.

In all four performance dimensions, the PTS group received higher mean

ratings compared to the control group (see Table 2).

To measure the behavior criteria and to answer the first research

question, whether receiving PTS affected the subsequent performance of

the new employees on the four dimensions of performance, a one-way

multivariate analysis of variance was conducted. The training condition

(control or PTS) was the independent variable and the four dimensions of

performance constituted the dependent variables. The significance level

for this statistical test was set at .05. MANOV A was used to examine

whether there were any significant differences between the supervisory

ratings for the control and the PTS groups on any of the four dimensions of


performance. The results revealed that there were not any significant

differences between the supervisory ratings for the control and the PTS

groups on any of the dimensions of performance (see Table 3). The PTS

group did not receive significantly higher ratings by the supervisors on

any of the dimensions in comparison to the control group.

The effect sizes for the training condition on the four performance

dimensions were calculated in the MANOV A analyses as follows:

operations {R2 = .067), technical {R2 = .034), training (R2 = .046), and

teamwork (R2 = .07 4). The ·training condition apparently had slightly

more effect on the teamwork dimension of performance, but not

considerable enough to be significant. The observed low statistical power

(1-f3 = .23) of this analysis was not surprising due to the small sample size

in this study and may explain why these result did not achieve statistical

significance. The univariate and multivariate tests of homogeneity of the

variance for the training condition were also not significant.

Because no significant effect for the supervisory ratings on any of

the four dimensions of performance were found, and because the

intercorrelations among the four dimensions of performance were high for

the supervisory ratings, the four dimensions of performance (technical,

operations, training, and teamwork) were collapsed into one dimension


(overall performance). Therefore, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

was conducted to further explore the effects of training. The training

condition (control or PTS) constituted the independent variable and the

overall performance constituted the dependent variable. The significance

level for this statistical test was set at .05. The results did not indicate

any significant difference between the two groups on overall performance

(see Table 4). The supervisors rated both the control and the PTS groups

similarly and did not distinguish the groups on their overall performance.

It was also found that the training condition had a slight effect on

the overall performance dimension {R2 = .065). This effect size is not so

surprising, considering that the control group was not really a non-trained

group; the control group actually received some training from senior peers

while working on the assembly lines. The observed low statistical power

(1-f3 = .355) of this analysis, due to the small sample size in this study,

limited the chances of finding statistically significant results.

Reaction Criteria

To evaluate and explore reaction criteria, informal focus groups for

both the PTS and the control groups were held. Notes form the

discussions in the focus groups were recorded. The aggregated results of


the focus groups have been summarized in Table 5 for the PTS group and

in Table 6 for the control group.

The results of the focus groups indicated that the PTS group reacted

to this method of training more favorably even after months of working on

the job. Overall, trainees who received PTS were more satisfied with their

training program. They felt that working with their peers positively

affected their performance. They were able to practice and gain mastery of

operations and to transfer their learnings to the real job situation. They

also felt that having a non-threatening peer as trainer facilitated their

learning by lessening their anxiety and stress level, consistent with the

findings ofBertz and Thompsett (1992) that have emphasized anxiety,

stress, and fear of failure as the main components hampering learning

processes.

The PTS group also reported that their familiarity with the

documents and procedures helped them to excel in their learning on the

real job. For instance, by reviewing the manuals and procedures they

could learn new operations on their own. They felt that as team members

on the job they participated in more team oriented activities because of

their initial training in groups. The reports are consistent with


Obenshain's (1992) findings that peers cooperating as a team could

accomplish reasonable goals in a short period of time.

Overall, the PTS group was satisfied with PTS. To minimize the

PTS disadvantages, the PTS group suggested that the operators on the

lines and supervisors be educated about the PTS and its content. This

would reduce their peers' and supervisors' exaggerated expectations from

the new trainees. The control group was dissatisfied with their training

program and recommended the need for a more systematic approach to

training.

Results Criteria

Due to the changes in organizational policies, most temporary

employees in the PTS group had received contractor status after three

months of their employment. This policy was inconsistent with the policy

used for the control group, which had to receive the contractor status

based on their performance evaluations. Therefore, the number of

employees who have received contractor or regular, full-time status within

the first six months of their employment was no longer an appropriate

basis for comparison. Due to these changes in organizational polices for

converting temporary and contract employees to regular, full-time


employee status for the experimental group, collecting data and

conducting x2 analyses were not possible for result criteria.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a PTS on

the subsequent performance of new employees in a high-tech

manufacturing environment. The PTS in terms of its effects on training

outcomes, specifically, effects on reaction, behavior, and results criteria

were measured.

Behavior Criteria

Due to the low reliability measures for peers and self ratings, these

ratings were discarded from the analyses. A low reliability coefficient (g)

indicated that peers and trainees themselves have not rated the SEF

dimensions reliably and consistently. The low reliability could limit the

possibility of finding significant differences between the two groups. To

eliminate this possibility, peers and self ratings were eliminated and only

supervisory ratings were used to test the behavior criteria.

The results of the MAN OVA and AN OVA for the supervisory

ratings, however, did not support the hypothesis that PTS would affect the

behavioral measures of performance. The performance of new trainees on

the measures of technical, operations, training and teamwork and overall


performance was not statistically different for the two training groups.

The new employees who received PTS were not perceived as being better

performers based on composite ratings by supervisors on the four

dimensions of performance (technical, operations, training, and

teamwork). These results may have been due to the fact that the sample

size was too small to show significant variation between the two groups

(i.e., low power to detect significant differences between the groups). The

effect size (R2 = .065) for training method for the overall performance

dimension indicated that a larger sample size may have led to statistially

significant differences between the two groups. As seen in Table 2, the

means were all in the expectated direction.

The four dimensions of performance may also have required longer

training and more work experience to develop. The SEFs used to evaluate

the control and the PTS group were the standard evaluation forms used by

management for yearly performance appraisals, indicating that developing

the competencies in the SEFs usually would have required a minimum of

one year. The control and the PTS groups were evaluated after only six

months, and as a result may not have gained sufficient experience or skills

to demonstrate these competencies.


Overall, the results of this study, overall, were not congruent with

the findings of Filipczak (1993), Fredericksen et al. (1986), Heise (1990),

and Obenshain (1992). PTS did not appear to have a positive effect on the

on-the-job performance of the new trainees compared to standard OJT,

although low statistical power may have limited the chances of finding

statistically significant results.

Reaction Criteria

Overall, trainees who received PTS were more satisfied with their

training program. The advantages of the PTS were consistent with the

beliefs stated by Adkins (1994). The PTS provided a just-in-time training

system which reduced training and development time by capitalizing on

the existing employees' technical and training skills. PTS also offered the

new trainees the opportunity to learn and to gain experience and work

with their peers. PTS was organized to encourage retention and transfer

of skills, and taught trainees to systematically use the manuals and

procedures as reference guides, tutorials, and training opportunities. PTS

offered a consistent step-by-step training program to optimize practice,

give immediate feedback to produce effective behavior, and facilitate

learning for trainees with different styles of learning. PTS also educated

the new trainees by introducing critical concepts in the procedures and the

Peer Training System 3 7

process to maximize understanding and retention. Congruent with

Tannenbaum and Yukl's 1992 assertions on training requirements, PTS

built in a reinforcement mechanism, by giving sufficient time, practice,

and feedback, that may have increased trainee's self-efficacy (perception of

success in a task) due to a training environment that simulated the real

job.

The advantages cited by the classical OJT consisted of having one

senior operator as coach and mentor, establishing a working relationship

between the trainee and the senior operator. The disadvantages of the

classical OJT, however, were many: lack of any systematic training and

evaluation; the stress of production during the training; fear of making

mistakes and having a negative impact on the production process; fear of

being judged as a slow learner; pressure of learning through trial and

error; lack of individual initiative in problem solving; and relying on the

senior operator's judgment in resolving issues.

A key implication of this study is that having a PTS may make the

training a more effective and favorable organizational function. Future

research should be conducted in an attempt to understand peer training

programs as an alternative to traditional training methods.


Limitations

The current study was not without its limitations. The first major

limitation of this study was related to the presence of threats to internal

validity (Goldstein, 1993). Diffusion, testing, and differential selection

were variables other than the PTS that may have affected the results of

this study.

Diffusion could have played a significant role in determining the

outcome of this study. The control group and PTS groups both could have

access to the content of SEFs through their peers and/or supervisors.

Being familiar with the content of the SEFs to some degree may have

affected the ratings of the control and the PTS groups, affecting the

results.

Testing may have also had an effect on the results of this study.

The SEFs were the standard performance appraisal tools used by

managers for evaluation purposes. The groups may have been exposed to

the SEFs through their supervisors as a part of their pre-discussions for

yearly evaluations. The control and the PTS groups may have attended

these pre-review sessions and became familiar with the SEFs and other

performance review documentation. This exposure to the content of SEFs


and performance review process may have affected ratings of both groups ,

impacting the results of this study.

Differential selection of participants may have been another

important variable that could have affected the results of this study. The

PTS group was hired six months after the control group. The available

labor pool also was continually shrinking at the time the PTS group was

hired. As a result, the PTS group may have been hired under less

stringent criteria and, therefore, could have differed from the control

group.

The lack of pretest was the second major limitation. Without

pretest ratings it was difficult to measure the differences in both the

control and the PTS groups against a baseline. Even though the control

and the PTS groups were matched to minimize the variability between the

two groups, the lack of pretest scores constituted a major limitation in this

study because the inherent differences between both groups were

impossible to estimate. In addition, because the participants were not

selected randomly the lack of pretest scores increased the possibility that

critical differences in both groups were not revealed by the post-test

ratings, intensifying the differential selection of participants. The samples

in this study were naturally assembled and were not random samples.


The third major limitation of this study was that the control group

was the first group to receive the training evaluation. This perception

could have affected the supervisors leading them to give higher ratings to

the control group. This perception effect is closely associated with the

concept of the Hawthorne effect. The supervisors who were vested in the

organizational process and knew that the control group constituted the

first group receiving SEFs may have over-rated the group's abilities and

skills.

The fourth limitation was the limited variace in the scale used in

the SEFs to evaluate the performance. The SEF's rating scale included

three measurements of performance: good, average, or poor. As a result

the scale's limited variance, to be conservative most of the supervisors may

have chosen the average in most cases. A more sensitive scale, ranging

from one to five, could have given the raters a wider range of choices and,

therefore, could have captured more precise responses and led to greater

vanance.

The fifth limitation of this study noted already was the small

sample size. A larger sample size could decrease the sampling errors, as

well as, increase the chance of finding real differences between the groups.

Therefore, a larger sample could have more power to detect the real


differences between the control and the PTS groups. As it was mentioned

before, the means were all in the expected directions.

The sixth limitation of this study was that the criteria used to

match the control and the PTS groups were very general, including: not

having a formal education, not having a vocational degree in computers,

and not having computer assembling experience. These criteria did not

consider the trainees' previous job skills and life experiences. For

instance, a mechanic without a formal education, an electronic degree, and

computer assembly work experience was matched with a female home

maker who met the same criteria. A mechanic who did not have computer

assembly experience was, nonetheless, more experienced in acquiring the

necessary skills at a faster pace due to his work experiences than a female

homemaker who recently joined the workforce.

The final limitation of this study was the inability to examine

results level data. Due to the organizational changes, the comparison of

the PTS and the control groups on the results level of training criteria was

not possible.

Future Research

Future research needs to consider a more appropriate time line that

matches the organization's performance appraisal time lines. In this study


the time line for the study was six months. The SEFs used in this study,

however, were the standard performance evaluation forms normally used

by supervisors and managers for yearly reviews. Some of the criteria in

the SEFs, as a result, were expected to develop in one year and could not

have been met in six months. The future research, thus, must consider the

context of performance appraisals and environment of the organization

under study and adjust the time line for the study accordingly.

Future research must assure that the samples will be random

despite the fact that in organizations participants of any study may be

grouped naturally and the randomness of the samples may be difficult to

obtain. In addition to sample randomness, future research must consider

larger samples for evaluation in order to increase power to more accurately

judge the effectiveness of a training program.

Future research should design a separate performance appraisal

form which not only reflects a wider range on the response scale, but also

will not be perceived as a performance measurement tool. In addition, the

evaluation method should focus on measuring the transfer of specific skills

that the trainees are expected to learn during the training. A general

performance appraisal evaluation form measures the collective

expectations that organizations have from an individual employee. A


training evaluation must consider evaluating only the specific skills

targeted at the training needs analysis and to measure those specific

skills, accordingly.

Future research must consider more stringent criteria to match the

control and experimental groups. Demographics including: gender, age,

education, past work experiences, and any other criteria must be more

specifically defined. Pretests, large samples, and random selection would

lessen the inherent variability between the control and experimental

groups in organizations.

Extensions and replications would be useful in determining both the

internal and external validity of this study's results. The present study

was conducted in a manufacturing environment. The design of this study

can be extended to service-oriented organizations. Future research should

study the effects of peer training on service-oriented organizations. It

would be intriguing to find whether the service-oriented organizations

would yield different results.

Conclusion

A peer training system is a customized training method that uses

the existing skilled workforce to train new hires and retrain and cross

train the current employees. This method of training is flexible enough to


meet the demands of the changing work place in a short period of time. A

peer training system implies having a workforce that is skilled, not only in

technical know-how, but also in training technologies. It also implies that

training is an integrated part of that specific industry. In manufacturing,

PTS implies that training and production are integrated as one function

because peers who train are also a part of the team that produces.

Although the results of the behavior criteria of this study were

nonsignificant, they may have been due to low power. Because of other

advantages of the PTS this method may still hold some promises. PTS is

not only a training method. It is a business and organizational strategy to

utilize the best available resources for training, development, and

production. Peer training, basically, is inexpensive, efficient, and

effective. The interaction of trainees with peer trainers in a simulated

training environment appears to be a very powerful method in training

strategies, reflecting the natural way of human learning. All

organizations need to take advantage of internal resources rather than

relying on external resources for training their workforce. Peer training is

a natural. resource for use by any organization, should the organization

expect to meet the skills demand and competitive requirements of the

coming century.


References

Adkins, K. E. (1994). Tapping the power of peers. Human

Resources Professional. 7. 12-14.

Arvey, R. D. & Cole, D. A. (1989). Evaluating change due to

training. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.) Training and Development in

Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berets, R. D. & Thompsett, R. E. (1992). Comparing traditional and

integrative learning methods in organizational training programs.

Journal of Applied Psychology. 77, 941-951.

Chamot, D., & Baggett, J. M. (1979). Silicon. satellites and robots:

The impact of technological change on the workplace. Washington, DC:

Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO.

Cole, R. E. (1989). Strategies for learning: Small-group activities in

America. Japanese. and Swedish industry. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1976). The design and conduct of

quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings. In M.D.

Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.

223-326). New York: John Wiley & sons, Inc.

Danziger, J. N. (1985). Social science and the social impacts of

computer technology. Social Science Quarterly. 66. 3-21.


Denison, E. (1984). Trends in American economic growth. 1929-

1982. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Duvall, M. (1983). A report on quick-start economic development

programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Vocational and Adult

Education.

Fandt, P. M. (1991). The relationship of accountability and

interdependent behavior to enhancing team consequences. Group and

Organizational Studies, 16, 300-312.

Fredericksen, L. W., Meyers, B. J. & Riley, W. A. (1986). A case for

cross-training. Training. 23. 37-43.

Filipczak, B. (1993). Frick teaches frack. Training. 30. 30(5).

Goldstein, I. L. (1991). Training in work organizations. In M.D.

Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 507-620). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organizations (3rd ed.). Pacific

Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Gordon, J. (1988). Who is being trained to do what? Training. 25.

51-60.

Harper, D. (1987). Working knowledge: Skill and community in a

Peer Training System 4 7

small shop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Heise, B. (1990). Technology transfer. CIO. 3, 8-10.

Hodson, R., Hooks, G., & Riehle, S. (1992). Customized training in

the workplace. Work and Occupations, 19, 272-292.

Kelley, M. R. (1989). An assessment of the skill upgrading and

training opportunities for blue-collar workers under programmable

automation. In Industrial Relations Research Association: Proceedings of

the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting (pp. 301-308).

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1959, 1960). Techniques for evaluating training

programs. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors. 13, 3-9,

21-26; 14, 13-18, 28-32.

Kusterer, K. C. (1987). Know-how on the job: The important

working knowledge of unskilled workers. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Latham, G. P.(1988). Human Resource training and development.

Annual Review of Psychology. 39. 545-582.

Lillrank, P., & Kano, N. (1989). Continuous improvement: Quality

control circles in Japanese industry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Center for Japanese Studies.

Lippert, R. C. (1989). Expert systems: tutors, tools and tutees.

Business Psychology. 2, 60-73.

London, M. (1989). Managing the Training Enterprise. San


Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Milkovich, G. T., & Boudreau, J. W. (1991). Human resource

management. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Nilson, C. (1990). How to use peer training. Supervisory

Management, 35, 8-14.

Obenshain, V. (1992). Peer training yields speedy results.

Personnel Journal. 71. 107(3).

Rao, T. V., & Abraham, E. (1986). Human resource development:

practices in Indian industries-a trend report. Manual Labor Studies. 2,

73-85.

Pursell, E. D. (1991). Employee development. In K. N. Wexley

(Ed.), Developing Human Resources, Washington, DC: BNA Books.

Ralphs, L. T., & Stephen, E. (1986). HRD in the Fortune 500.

Training and Development Journal. 40. 69-76.

Rickett, D. (1993). Peer training: not just a low-budget answer.

Training, 30. 70(3).

Rumberger, R. W. (1981). The changing skill requirements of jobs

in the U.S. economy. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 34. 578-589.

Saari, L. M., Johnson, T. R., McLaughlin, S. D., & Zimmerle, D. M.

(1988). A survey of management training and education practices in U.S.


companies. Personnel Psychology. 41, 731-743.

Sackett, P.R., & Mulien, E. J. (1993). Beyond formal experimental

design: Towards an expanded view of the training evaluation process.

Personnel Psychology. 46. 613-627.

Spencer, K. I. (1983). Deciphering Prometheus: Temporal change in

the skill level of work. American Sociological Reviews, 48, 824-837.

Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (Eds.) (1991). Guidelines for use in team

training development. In Teams: Their Training and Performance.

Norwood, NJ: Albex.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., & Martineau, J. W. (1993).

Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy:

Implications for training effectiveness. Personnel Psychology. 46, 125-147.

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in

work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology. 43, 399-441.

Wexley, K. N., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Developing and Training

Human Resources in Organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.


Figure Caption

Figure 1. Time Line to Conduct Study and Collect Behavior Criteria Data.

Control group hired

-!-


==> Experimental group hired ==> Control group evaluated

==> PTS Implemented -!-

Experimental group Evaluation

-!-

Oct. 94 <= _N _ D _ J _ F _ M_ ==> April 95 <= _ M _ J _ J _A_ S _ ==> Oct. 95


Figure Caption

Figure 2. Measures and Tests to Evaluate Levels of Training Criteria.

Dependent Variable Measure

Dimensions of SEFs

Performance

Employee Satisfaction Focus

with Training Type Groups

Employee Status Temporary,

Contract, or

Regular


Test

One-way MANOVA

One-way ANOVA

Qualitative

Comparison

:x.2

Kirpatrick' s

Levels of

Training Criteria

Behavior

Reaction

Results


Table 1

Correlation Matrix for the Four Criteria in the SEF for Supervisory

Ratings

Operation Technical Training Teamwork

Operation 1.000

Technical .7911 1.000

Training .8656 .7212 1.000

Teamwork .8160 .7145 .8269 1.000

Note: N = 40, n. < .001 for all performance dimensions.


Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations for Each Dimension of Performance for

Supervisory Ratings

Performance Dimension

Operations

Technical

Training

Teamwork

Control Group

M SD

2.54 .47

2.67 .40

2.51 .48

2.57 .43

PTS Group

M SD

2.73 .33

2.78 .20

2.68 .30

2.76 .27


Table 3

Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Effect of Training Method on Four

Dimensions of Performance for Supervisory Ratings

Performance Dimension

Operations

Technical

Training

Teamwork

SS MS

.62 .63

.18 .18

.36 .36

.53 .53

Note. F tests were conducted with (1,38) df.

F

2.73

1.35

1.84

3.03

Sig ofF

.11

.25

.18

.09


Table 4

Analysis of Variance for Overall Performance for Supervisory Ratings of

control and PTS group

Effect

Training Methods

Within Group Error+

Residuals

Total

SS

.41

5.82

6.23

DF MS F Sig ofF

1 .41 2.65 .112

38 .15

39 .16


Table 5

Advantages and Disadvantages of PTS Reported by PTS Group

Adyantages

1. PTS gave priority to training rather than production and learning was

the goal. Therefore, trainees did not have to worry about production.

2. PTS was less stressful and anxiety provoking because the trainees

were trained by peers not supervisors, instructors, or formal trainers.

Working with peer trainers made the training fun.

3. The simulation line allowed for mistakes. It also allowed for practice

to resolve the mistakes, therefore, building trainee confidence.

4. Trainees learned how to read and understand the manuals and

operational documents and had a chance to practice their understanding

of the operation.

5. Trainees worked together in teams to promote learning and resolve

issues, and fast learners were encouraged to work with slow learners to

facilitate the training.

6. Trainees became familiar with all the equipment, PC requirement,

work stations, manuals, and operations in training. Therefore, when the


Table 5. (continued)

trainees joined the production lines they focused on production not

training.

7. Trainee felt that they were less of an imposition on the senior

operators when they joined the lines. The new trainees started

production independently and when needed they could train themselves

without much help from other operators by following operational

documents.

8. Trainees felt competent and confident enough that they even could

check the performance of the more senior operators against the

documents and manuals and suggest improvement where needed.

9. Trainees believed that they worked better as team members on the

production lines because they had already practiced working with one

another on the training line.

Disadvantages

1. On production lines everyone including supervisors expected more

from new trainees. The trainees, therefore, were left alone to operate

without being mentored to complete their training.



2. Line operators were more sensitive to the mistakes the new trainees

were making. They were expected to be as fast and precise as the senior

operators in the production.

3. Trainees had difficulty assimilating and establishing relationship with

the senior operators in the beginning because the traditional

apprenticeship which worked as an initiation mechanism did not exits.

4. Trainees believed that the issues raised in the production lines (low

quality and/or production) were attributed to their performance when

they were new in the production lines.

5. Trainees were rotated faster in different operations on a line before

they attained mastery in a certain operation.

6. Senior operators did not value PTS highly because they were conducted

by peers like themselves and, therefore, demonstrated difficulties to

accept the new training method as effective.


Table 6

Advantages and Disadvantages of Classical OJT Reported by Control

Group

Advantages

1. Trainees were assigned to senior operators for training. The senior

operator would train in a coach/mentor role. A working relationship would

be established between new trainees and senior operators.

2. New trainees were treated as new and there were fewer expectations

from them.

3. Senior operators would value their own work more because they were

training and producing simultaneously. Seniority was respected because

it was a source of helping to train new hires.

4. Fast learners and aggressive trainees excelled rapidly and assimilated

faster in the teams and made more progress.

Disadvantages

1. Trainees were thrown into production lines without any basic

knowledge of what to do.



2. Trainees were at the mercy of the senior operators as to how they would

be trained. Senior operators, usually, did not have sufficient time to

explain details thoroughly, therefore, demonstrated less tolerance for

questions.

3. Trainees felt great deals of anxiety and stress because any mistake

were counted against them and their teams.

4. The phrase "sink or swim" were often repeated by senior operators who

were not dedicated to training the new hires.

5. Slow learners and shy trainees had limited chances to succeed because

production could not be stopped for their sake. Slow learners and less

aggressive trainees were treated as such and were pushed to do simple

and little jobs.

6. Senior operators usually would not follow procedure and would train

short cuts and devalue the use of documentation and manuals. Training

was not standard across the factory. New hires had to learn by trial and

error and not through standard procedure.

8. Senior operators would convey a sense of superiority due to their

seniority and training responsibilities.



9. New trainees had to sometimes overlook problems and issues because

they were afraid that they would be blamed for it. In addition, new hires

had to heavily rely on the judgment of the senior operators and lacked the

personal initiative themselves to solve problems or recommend resolution.


APPENDIX A

Skills Evaluation Form (SEF)


Skills Evaluation Form

Employee's Name: Date:

Manger/Management: Shift: Area:

SSN: Job Description:

Please take a few minutes to review this evaluation and check the appropriate option box. I =Does not demoT1Strates the skill 2 =Poor demoT1Stration of skill 3 = Consistently and reliably demoT1Strates the skill

Ooerations: -Maintains a safe, clean and ore:anized environment

Has basic knowledge of process flow and oaoerwork

Has basic know ledge of ISO 9000

Operates with limited supervision

Has basic product and quality knowlede:e

Deals with change in a constructive manner

Knows quality indicators and other business indicators and strives to correct problems

Understands area equipment requirements including calibration

Recognizes and identifies discrepant material and quality problems

Understands area process flow

Follows documented processes and procedures

Follows process improvement techniaues and methods

Knows where to find information and or where to e:o for hel

Understands and maintains orooer

• •

• •

• • •

•

• •

• •

Keeps station clean at all times Adheres to safety procedures

Recognizes discrepancies between documents Has intra-station process flow knowledge

Participates in audits and quality issues Analvzes the data and oreoare reoorts Effectively works with minimal guidance in a structured environment Ensures balance of line, product mix, and throughput optimization by being aware of

rioritv WIP Monitors the product for defects Can explain frequent problems with products

Readily accepts and supports change Suggests positive changes

• Participates in audits and quality meetings • Actively provides information on team goals,

area strategies, equipment and operational issues and chane:es

• Understands all safety issues with respect to equipment in area

• Uses the dailv start uo checklist consistent! • Monitors the product for defects • Can explain frequent problems with product

'Ualit • Follows spec's and RFC's • Has intra-station orocess flow knowlede:e • Knows how to use various tools such as

RFC's, logs, and passdown's • Enters/reads area oass downs • Communicates problems/issues appropriately • Follows BKM's

• Gives/receives verbal pass downs to peers • Enter/reads data in vax and pass downs

• Adheres to proper moving and lifting rocedures

material handling

Trainin

Accesses appropriate materials to ensure correct procedures and instructions are followed

Uses training system to advance own skills and know ledge and desire to learn

Demonstrates good communication and listening skills

Actively pursues operational/technical skills, knowledl!'e and terminolo

Works effectively with peer trainer to ensure competency in new skills

Is willing to give feedback or to suggest changes to training

Shares knowledge willingly and readily

Understands quality and output expectations

Is responsible to maintain quality svstems

Is responsible for being prepared for audits

Teamwork: I ,e,·el ( 0111petencies

Actively participates to achieve organizational goals

Communicates and works effectively with team members

Actively participates in team meetings Accepts constructive feedback from ther team members

•

•

•

• •

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

• • •

• •

•

•

I 2 3

•

•

•

•

•

• • •


Obeys general safety guide-lines in material handlin

Identifies inconsistencies between existing documents and actual operation procedures Provides inputs to training materials and

ec's Participates in improvement teams Uses IU and self paced training material

Openly accepts/gives feedback Demonstrates active listening skills

Engages in cross training Continually asks questions to increase understanding and knowledge

Gives appropriate feedback Evaluates/monitors training

Gives/receives feedback on training system Prepares training indicators

Actively provides information on team goals, area strategies, equip. issues, operational status, operational changes, etc Acts as a mentor for new emolovees Plans activities according to operation priorities and BKM's Communicates area status -eauiP., WIP, performance l!'oals Know Intel quality standards Responds to quality issues effectively

Works collaboratively with team members, addressing personal concerns/needs for overall maintenance of quality Models positive team behavior

( "riter·ia

Ensures that the operations are continually covered Adheres to policies and procedures (breaks, attendance, cleanroom, etc.) Demonstrates active listening skills and checks for understanding Adjusts behavior based on constructive feedback Discusses problems with team members and supervisor Ne1mtiates to win/win Takes time to listen to others point of view Adjusts behavior based on constructive feedback


• Negotiates to win/win Works with individuals to resolve • Communicates view points effectively conflicts

• Communicates problems/issues appropriately Asks for help as needed • Discusses problems with team members and

supervisor

• Follows supervisor's direction Responds correctly to quality • Writes reports, pass downs, etc . feedback reports

• Understands Intel culture Demonstrates Intel values through • Role models Intel values behavior -

• Ensures that operations are continuously Applied learning to meet/exceed covered factory goals • Revises basic improvement/development

plans sunnlied by supervisor

• Understands how the team works Understands own role in team • Works together with individuals of diverse performance cultures and styles Utilizes 7 step problem solving • Writes a clear problem statement

• Finds root cause

suo!lsanb sdno.in snood

HXICTN~dc:IV


Focus Group Questions

Your training department has provided you with an opportunity to express your feelings, thoughts, and experiences about the training you have received. Please provide and share relevant information to the following questions.

1. Do you feel that your training was adequate for your overall job duties?

2. Were you able to use the concepts and skills you learned back on the job?

3. Were you satisfied with the training you received?

4. Do you feel that hands-on practice can enhance your learning?

5. Do you feel that the training time was well spent?

6. Did you feel that a training plan can help enhance your learning?

7. Do you feel that peers are valuable trainers?

8. Do you think that training off -the-line with the coaching of peer trainers can be helpful?

9. What is you overall experience with your training?

10. If given a chance, how would you change the training process?

11. Did you get a chance to evaluate the training process?

12. Do you think evaluating the training process is important?

13. What are the specific disadvantages of peer training system?

14. What are the potential barriers to implement peer training system?

Documents

Evaluating the Effects of a Peer Training System on the